In DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Manuel, 362 S.W.3d 160, 174 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2012, no pet.), the Second Court of Appeals held that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Chrysler failed to meet a contractual best-efforts obligation. 362 S.W.3d at 168. Chrysler entered into a contract to open a new dealership in South Arlington. Id. at 168. In the event of a protest from another dealership, Chrysler promised to use its "best efforts to litigate or settle the protest in order to allow the establishment of the dealership." Id. at 169. When another dealership filed protest against the South Arlington dealership, Chrysler repeatedly tried to convince the dealership to withdraw the protest and filed a suit in federal court for an injunction and to compel arbitration. Id. at 175-76. However, Chrysler did not try to settle for nine months. Id. at 175. The court held that Chrysler's pursuit of litigation at the exclusion of settlement was sufficient evidence that Chrysler did not use best efforts. Id. at 176-77. Rejecting Chrysler's argument that they had the discretion to litigate or settle, the Court noted that Chrysler failed to settle even after the federal district court denied injunctive relief and their motion to compel arbitration. Id.